Saddam's chemical weapons would have degraded too far to be useful after 20 years. These are newly manufactured weapons. Anybody with 1/2 brain knows that. Is the human race really this stupid?

I wouldn't surprised if 90% of the old cold war ICBMs would fail to launch. Getting a rocket that size off the ground is not a child's toy. Look how much trouble NASA has even today. Can you imagine the failure rate of rockets that have been sitting in a hole for 40 years?

I'm not a rocket expert, but thinking 20-40 year old weapons still perfectly and safely functional after that amount of time just doesn't seem likely.

I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point? You are being invaded by a superior force. You know you are going to need every resource at your disposal just to survive. If it looks like your defeat is inevitable, if the opposition makes it across the Red Line around Baghdad, you might is well use your WMDs and make them pay as great a price as possible for attacking you. That why you keep your WMDs.

But if you send them to another country, what do you get? Oh, after the opposing army overruns your country, after you are deposed, and hiding in a hole somewhere, after your children are killed, and maybe you are killed, someone will look up and say, "Golly, I guess he was telling the truth, that he really did not have WMDs, Hyuck! Well, don't I feel abashed? " The whole idea makes no sense. None.

RyogaM:I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point? You are being invaded by a superior force. You know you are going to need every resource at your disposal just to survive. If it looks like your defeat is inevitable, if the opposition makes it across the Red Line around Baghdad, you might is well use your WMDs and make them pay as great a price as possible for attacking you. That why you keep your WMDs.

But if you send them to another country, what do you get? Oh, after the opposing army overruns your country, after you are deposed, and hiding in a hole somewhere, after your children are killed, and maybe you are killed, someone will look up and say, "Golly, I guess he was telling the truth, that he really did not have WMDs, Hyuck! Well, don't I feel abashed? " The whole idea makes no sense. None.

No you see Saddam was able to smuggle his WMDs into Syria but hid himself in a spider hole rather than fleeing the country.

RyogaM:I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

freak7:RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

freak7:RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

freak7:RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

The entire Hans Blix thing was to see what he did with them: destroy them like he was supposed to, or hide them or send them elsewhere.

He probably had destroyed them, but he wanted his neighbors to think he still had them. Plausible indisputability.

RyogaM:I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point? You are being invaded by a superior force. You know you are going to need every resource at your disposal just to survive. If it looks like your defeat is inevitable, if the opposition makes it across the Red Line around Baghdad, you might is well use your WMDs and make them pay as great a price as possible for attacking you. That why you keep your WMDs.

But if you send them to another country, what do you get? Oh, after the opposing army overruns your country, after you are deposed, and hiding in a hole somewhere, after your children are killed, and maybe you are killed, someone will look up and say, "Golly, I guess he was telling the truth, that he really did not have WMDs, Hyuck! Well, don't I feel abashed? " The whole idea makes no sense. None.

Because some people read Tom Clancy novels and think they're biographical.

freak7:To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

freak7:RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

You did not actually read my whole post, did you, like where I mocked the very idea that making the would think you did not have WMDs is a good idea when it only occurs after your country is invaded, your army destroyed, your children are killed, you are deposed and killed?

Granny_Panties:Yes, I know, I'm talking out of my ass. Be gential and use lube...

Well at least you admitted it.

I never made it further than basic college chemistry but chemicals degrade at different rates based upon composition and exposure to other chemicals and energy. I'd only take an expert biochemist's opinion on how long chemical weapons can last before they effectively go inert.

Churchy LaFemme:freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....

Churchy LaFemme:freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....

It's a true enough statement, it's just meaningless.

The fact that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraq is well known.The fact that chemical weapons aren't very stable or long lived is also well known.That the chemical weapons tactics that worked somewhat on Iranian human wave conscripts would be ineffective against the speed and flexibility of the well equipped US military is unproven but I believe it is true and that Saddam would have known better than to invest in something both useless and dangerous to his regime during the international sanction period between the gulf wars.

Chemical weapons are clumsy, ineffectual weapons under most conditions, this is why they are not used very often and then always against civilians or very poorly trained, equipped and led troops.

CodeMonkey4Life:Churchy LaFemme: freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....Churchy LaFemme: freak7: To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Don't. Stop. Belieeeeeeevin'....

It's a true enough statement, it's just meaningless.

The fact that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iraq is well known.The fact that chemical weapons aren't very stable or long lived is also well known.That the chemical weapons tactics that worked somewhat on Iranian human wave conscripts would be ineffective against the speed and flexibility of the well equipped US military is unproven but I believe it is true and that Saddam would have known better than to invest in something both useless and dangerous to his regime during the international sanction period between the gulf wars.

Chemical weapons are clumsy, ineffectual weapons under most conditions, this is why they are not used very often and then always against civilians or very poorly trained, equipped and led troops.

You say that it is "well known" that the Iraqis used chemical weapons against Iran, and it probably is well known. It might even be true. But I was around during the early 80s and paid close attention at the time to current events. I distinctly recall representatives of the Reagan administration informing the nation as a matter of certitude that Iran used chemical weapons against Iraq and that Iranian insistence to the contrary was mere propaganda. You'll pardon me if I remain somewhat skeptical about the whole subject.

The evidence that Saddam's attempted to use Chemical Weapons against U.S. troops in 1991 is circumstantial. There is no definitive proof that it occurred, and, even if it did occur, was completely and 100% ineffective, so much so that, for years, the U.S. denied Sadam ever used chemical weapons in the Kuwait war.

This leads to two different conclusions: one, the complete ineffectiveness of chemical weapons in the Kuwait war may have convinced Sadam that further development past that date in the face of international sanctions was counterproductive, and, that there would have been nothing to constrain Sadam from ordering the use of WMDs in the Iraq war in the last war, if he had them, as some sort of last ditch effort to effect the outcome, even if they were previously ineffective

What these facts do not support is the conclusion that Sadam would have voluntarily given his WMDs away at the time of an invasion, as Bush apologists want to claim, again and again.

your post that in 1991 he used them somehow those made in the 80's couldn't have been used. but you have to realize that he probably continued to make them up until the first gulf war. after that he was under much more international scrutiny.

chemical wpns (and death in general)lead to voiding of bowels and bladder

the victims pictured seemed very cleannever clear if they had already been processed (stripped, washed, fresh clothes)or had just been collected (in which case there could be casualties from 2nd had exposure)

Fart_Machine:freak7: RyogaM: I never understood this argument, that Saddam gave away his WMDs. Why? Why would he do that? What's the damn point?

To make it appear to the world that he never had them. What some people like to forget is that UN weapons inspectors had documented large amounts of chemical weapons in Iraq, so there's no disputing that he had them.

Yes at one time he did back in the 80s against Iran. However stockpiles only have a shelf life of a few months at most

Have you heard of nerve gas? Some is 30 - 40 yrs old and will kill you quick.

At this point the far right sacks of medical waste just want to try and resuscitate the justifications for war in Iraq because they're inhuman scum who want to do it again and again. The vaunted WMDs will be "found" to have been moved to France if the Republicans get a hair up their ass about the frogs again.